Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jan 1961

Vol. 53 No. 11

Electricity (Supply) (Amendment) Bill, 1959—Report and Final Stages.

Government amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 49, to delete "Act" and substitute "paragraph".

This is a simple verbal amendment to provide for the laying on the Table of both Houses of the Oireachtas not only superannuation schemes themselves but amended schemes or new schemes, in accordance with the suggestion made by Senator O'Quigley.

May we discuss amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 together?

If the House agrees. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are in substitution for the suggestion by Senator O'Quigley in amendment No. 3. It would come to the same thing; it is merely a different way of drafting.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 8, line 17, before "and" to insert ", every amending scheme".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Government amendment No. 4:
In page 8, lines 21 and 22, to delete "superannuation" in both places where it occurs.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I want to make one final point about the Bill. I regret that the Minister did not accept my suggestion to reduce the additional moneys by £10,000,000. I gave a number of reasons on Committee Stage but I should like to add one other reason, that is, that the figures for sales of electricity over the past six or seven years show that sales have practically doubled. In round terms, they have doubled. To meet that doubling of the sales of electricity, the additional generating plant brought into operation has been about 12½ per cent. I agree with the Minister to this extent, that when there is such a situation, the day does come when more generating plant must be added. My purpose during this discussion was to ensure that the situation which arose in these earlier years would not recur, where there must have been massive surplus plant.

The Minister, in the main, made the case that there is no surplus plant at present. I am bound to accept the suggestion that in this context within the next couple of years, there will be no surplus plant if demand continues to increase at the same rate. However, the provision in this Bill of an additional £20,000,000 for capital expenditure on generating plant puts the Oireachtas in the position of creating a situation where if what happened before were to happen again, there would be in existence a very large amount of plant not required. Of course, let me say straight away, that to pay the interest and sinking fund on such plant involves a great deal more now than it did seven or eight years ago. Money is dearer.

My amendment, therefore, was not put down in any spirit of opposition to the idea that the E.S.B. would always be in a position to supply electricity. I agree thoroughly with the Minister that no danger must be run of a position arising in which power has to be rationed; though indeed there might be worse things than having to ration power in that sense because, in the first instance, such rationing as would occur would take place by way of suggestion to firms.

I hope the inclusion in this Bill of this very large additional capital will not result in its being spent wastefully. There is no use in the case being made that certain individuals have been responsible for this campaign against the E.S.B. I did not listen to any individuals about it. The E.S.B. still has surplus plant but nothing like as much surplus plant as there was four or five years ago. However, I think we can rely upon the Minister to ensure that this additional authority given in this Bill will not be used to instal generating plant to an excessive extent.

I would ask the Minister for the assurance that if at any time it should become apparent that plans have been made on too optimistic a basis, they will be rapidly reconsidered. One of the difficulties on the last occasion was that the plans were not reconsidered nearly rapidly enough, and I am not apportioning blame to any particular Government in that regard. I ask the Minister for this assurance in relation to this very large increase of 20 per cent. in the authorised capital for development purposes, because at some stage, with the whole country linked up for rural electrification, unless there is large-scale industrial development, which we would all hope to see, there will be a danger of the same difficulty occurring again.

I can give Senator O'Donovan that assurance that if it is necessary to revise the programme downwards, so to speak, that will be the object of my Department and myself, in order to ensure that there will be no excess capacity or expenditure which does not result in the proper utilisation of the power plant. I have said already, and I say again, that the consumption of power has risen faster than was anticipated when the programme was arranged for the period from now up to 1968, and the E.S.B. will probably have to revise their plans in an upward direction.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share